Meta Gaming

Where the great threads of Druchii.net are kept

Moderator: The Dread Knights

User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Meta Gaming

Post by Keledron »

I recently got asked by several of my fellow club mates about ways in which they could improve their gaming and after thinking about how I could do this in a generic sense I came to the conclusion what they needed to do was have a better understanding of what I term meta-gaming.

Now this is a massive subject but what I have tried to do in this piece is break the ideas about meta-gaming down into easily digestible and understandable bullet points. Each item has a raft of thought process that go on within it any of which could be turned into pages of dialogue and discussion, some of this is obvious and some not so obvious and I haven’t spent a lot of time explaining some of the terms I use though I can if you want me to.

So firstly what do I mean by the term “meta-gaming”.

Meta-gaming is an understanding of the “game within the game”. It is all those things that the best players do instinctively when they design army lists, deploy for battle and carry out their battle plans on the table top. However it may seem innate in them to be good but under the surface a lot of thought is going on. One important point is that meta-gaming is not race specific or even game specific, the ideas and thought processes it involves can equally be applied in a CCG game as in Warhammer.


I have divided my list of points into two broad sections those that occur before the game starts and those that occur during the actual game. So taking a logical approach to this lets look at what goes on before the game begins.

• Choose a style of play - ideally something you like or want to try.
- Movement/Magic/shooting/combat or a combo of 2 or more
- I favour combo options simply because of the challenges they present - single option strategies often win tournaments though.

• Consider the tactical options of the style
- Refused flanks/wedges/crescents/castles etc.
- How can you use the troops in your Army list in these situations
- What spell decks should you choose to support your troops (if any available)
- How many primary strategy units do you need - combat blocks/cavalry/missile units
- How many support troops do you need - all units that are less than 12 models are support troops they can be of any unit type
- What characters do you need - not want! Why have 3 wizards when 2 will suffice?

• Build your list to reflect the primary tactical option but keep in mind a secondary tactical set up.

• Get all your models and put them on a table in front of you in your primary tactical formation and answer this question.
- Does it look like the sort of army I had in mind?
- If yes then give it a go.
- If no think about the list some more - My latest Dark Elf list is the process of some 8-10 months of this stage! http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=42985&highlight=

Well that’s the pre-game stuff outlined all be it fairly simply, lets now look at some of what you can think about whilst playing an actual game

• Asses the battlefield
- Can you use your primary tactical option on this battlefield
- Lines of sight needed for shooting
- Open areas for combat
- Flank protection from terrain
- Location of movement restricting terrain
- Defensive positions - these may be outside your deployment zone.

• Asses what you think your opponent may try - this relies on experience most armies have a most likely tactical setup they will favour once you know what they are
- Empire Gun lines - Castle
- Skaven SAD - Castle
- Lizardmen skirmish hordes - enveloping tactics and cloud formations
- High Elf Shooting/Magic - refused centre (crescent)
- High Elf all cavalry - Refused flanks
- Dwarf infantry - driving wedge (a.k.a. the "Golf" formation)

• Deploy your army carefully!
- Choose the units that will not change positions if you have to switch from one strategy to another due to the enemies actions to deploy first. Especially helpful when you get the previous point wrong or your opponent deploys in sub optimal fashion (which can be deliberate due to MI's e.g. Moonstone of Hidden Ways, Ellyrion Banner)

• Think through your 1st moves before the game starts know what you want to do in T1 if you go 1st or 2nd

• Consider how any spells you get can be used to support the opening moves.

• How many dice to use to cast
- There's no point not using 3 dice to cast a Fireball (MM) if your other spell is Flaming Sword of Rhuin (CC spell) and it's turn 1.

• Calculate likely shooting outcomes/combat outcomes before you start declaring charges it saves you from embarrassing/disastrous mistakes!
- Deliberately loosing a combat is a viable tactic if it weakens the enemy's position - think frenzied troops.
- Only shoot a unit enough to cause a panic test unless you can destroy it and panic others or it will be able to launch an effective charge at you in it's next movement phase.

• Do all the above correctly and you simply have to rely on average dice rolls to carry the day.

Well I hope this has given you a taste of what I consider the “meta-game” to be about and it hopefully might help a few people out there in some way or other.

Feed back’s always welcome or if you want some more explanation of anything I’ve said let me know

Kel
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
User avatar
Sha'a'alaar
The Ancient One
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 8:23 am
Location: Not eating a bacon sandwich, near Brighton, Britain

Post by Sha'a'alaar »

Well, I like it. Nice piece Kel.

Any more coming?

cheers
Sha'a'alaar
User avatar
Ant
Lord of the Venom Sword
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: London

Post by Ant »

Nice article Kel. It really gives an insight on how to improve your gaming. As you've said, good players do most of this stuff automatically and assume everyone else does too. So it's a really good idea to have a good outline such asthis for those of us who aren't quite at that stage yet.

One question: I noticed that in the 'assess tactical options' sectcion, you put character selection last on your list. Was this deliberate? I am aware that you generally choose your characters last but do you think that is the approach that should always be taken if possible? What about armies that rely heavily on characters (TKs as an immediate example), or a magic heavy army, or even if you wanted to include a dragon. Would you still choose the troops first? I tend to do it more half and half, generally picking my 1st 2 characters first then going back to them at the end.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).

(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
Gulgon
Corsair
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Ulthian, spreading lies of treachery amongst our misguided breatheren

Post by Gulgon »

In other words... think tatically...

I hate to be a downer but, I don't see anything about meta-gaming (game within a game), of coarse, all truths are relative; what I do see however is a nice thread on Warhammer Tatics :D

Ant: In regards to your question (yes, you didn't ask for my opinion but you're getting it anyways :twisted: ), I believe there are a set amount of points that have to be dictated to the rest of your army before considering Characters, example would be, if you want a well rounded army, you have to say, hey! I need 2 blocks of Static Rez (At least), 2 units of Fast Cav... a unit of Shooting etc.... Then, taking those points into account you should build your characters (with mundane equipment)... simply because, what sort of characters you want to take are going to largely effect what fills in the rest of your army... then you throw in your RBTs and your Mengil Manflayers, and see what you have left, what's worth cutting to improve your other units (R&B for Dark Riders, Shields for Warrior R&B, Seal of Ghrond for magical defense, spears for your Chariots) This way, I believe you'll come alot closer to getting what you want mixed in with what you can have, the first time around... there is still tons of playtesting, but IMO, not as much.
With a swing of his staff, the elements and the power of them seeped forth bringing violence to its path, death and dispair its wake. Another pass of the sceptor as the sky began to snatch up his enemies realeasing them to the jagged rocks of never again.
User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Post by Keledron »

@ Ant No not particularly

As a rule I pick my general 1st as you have to have one then my units then any additional characters I find this approach cuts down my initial tendancy to add 4 characters to the list instantly. It also enables me to look more carefully at what I'm going to do with the characters and also how best to equip them for what they are supposed to do.
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
User avatar
Rasputinii
M-A-D
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:52 am
Location: Melbourne Oz
Contact:

Post by Rasputinii »

Great little article there Kel.

I hate to try an compare my greatness to Kel, but what you have just said is what I have been trying to say for a while. Because of the game mechanics you can nt play Warhammer the same way you would command a real army. You have to play the game, and that involves dice, ranges and LOS Angles. In real life there is no such thing as "Marching" or LOS as they exist in Warhammer, and so if you play your army like you command a real army would will loose, because to succeed you gotta play "THE GAME"!

Indeed I think it this that I have found the most useful of all your advise and DA's advise (and I suppose Ches) over the last years since you have been tutoring me. I wouldn't be so bold as to say I have mastered it, but I certainly am on my way down that path (I hope;)).

So yeah, list to Kel Wise words, they are certainly true, and my increase in aptitude is down to them...

Ras
Pleased to be back
User avatar
Fr0
Trademaster
Posts: 3170
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by Fr0 »

Speaking more specifically from experience, metagaming is really fielding things geared to take out your enemies. This goes back to my golden days of Magic:the Gathering.

If you are entering a tourney where you anticipate a lot of a certain type of deck, you sideboard/mainboard a lot of hate. For example, if you expect a lot of TK, a chariot buster is a great idea. A lot of magic heavy armies, then dual caddies might be ideal.

What you mentioned I don't really consider metagaming myself, but from what I see it surely is a way to create an all-corners list which is what I generally try to make! Anticipating your opponents lists is really important, selecting the proper units to reflect the rest of your army and counter acting your opponents units comes into play heavily when I make my army lists myself.

You have some interesting concepts there Kel, and that was a great read. Generally speaking, you can take any list to your local club if you only have a few players and gear your army to take most of them out, but it takes more skill and I suppose is more fun to make one that you'll have a challenge with. Besides, one might show up with a secret army out of the blue! ;)

Fr0
User avatar
Evilzealot
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 2247
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:48 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Evilzealot »

I disagree that it is metagaming to build an army in such a way that it is synergetic with the game system. Even if you drop all the fantasy elements, the game does not play out like a real war, so why try to build historically realistic armies? Build towards an army you think you'd enjoy - but do consider game mechanics so that you end up with an army that you truely enjoy.

The biggest effect of Metagaming is when a player knows what types of armies are in the area, and builds a list to take advantage at something they are weak at. If everyone plays with 25-man infantry units, and no expendable units, then a Cavalry-hammer style army will run ruin. If no one plays with more than 2 levels of magic a High Elf seer council will cause some issues, and if everyone plays marines then a Star Cannon army is going to be overly effective. People play the game Magic with this rock-paper-scissors attitude, and it can definately extend towards Warhammer.
User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Post by Keledron »

@Gulgon - close actully what it says is just one word "think" and that's what meta-gaming is all about.

@Ras I don't claim to much greatness so you might well exceed me there. The piece is more or less a distillation of a lot of what I've been saying over the last couple of years to various people glad it's been of use.
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
User avatar
Narathiel
Rudolph's Heir
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: flirting on msn :)

Post by Narathiel »

Nice read there.

Gives lots of insight inexperienced, but also experienced players can and hopefully will use in the future.

Maybe (if you had the time to do so) could get one of your armies out (like your ghrond one) and give examples to all of the points you made. That would make the read even better :)

cheers
Yeah, been a long time and I have come across all sort of ****.

but I AM back so there you go-it's official ;)
It seems like the assassin sent out to eliminate me failed.
[insert evil laughter]
User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Post by Keledron »

@narathiel,

to take a real world example like the Ghrond list here's a basic outline of what went on in the general though process to select the units and how they work together, I'll expand into how I intend to play later on.

Before the game - Building the Army of Ghrond

I had made the initial decision to produce an army of Ghrond from a fluff perspective. This meant I was pre-committed to including all the City of Ghrond elements - Witches, Harpies, Cauldron and the two Ghrond magic items, with this initial unit mix gave me a high volume of low S attacks. The force multiplier of the cauldron also prompted me towards a combat themed army.

Tactically what I would be looking to do is drive my opponent into the Cauldron Red Fury Zone where I could derrive the maximum benefit from this force multiplier, so I would need some sort of drive mechanism in my list.

Looking at the units I was committed too and the magic items, I settled on a powerful Lord to lead the army representing the most powerful noble in Ghrond. with so many attacking units already I opted for the Black Dragon to emphasise this aspect. Also this would provide an admirable driving unit as no one really wants to be anywhere near a dragon. Lots of people will say you need Reapers in this role but the draw back is that people will try to avoid them and there are tables were they are hard to use and they don't get the benefits the dragon does from having the Cauldron in the list.

With this done I need to fill my core requirement and decided I needed units that could be used to screen my valuable Elites so the Core came down to being rxb armed warriors these serve two purposes; one to form the lines screening the more vulnerable elite troops and they give me some firepower to use in the shooting phase, I went for two units which I coupled to just a lone Dark Rider unit to deal with enemy fast cavalry. In previous lists I had tried several combo's in this role and have found the 2 warrior, 1 dark Rider set up to be the best in terms of cost and benefit.
Looking at deployemnt these would form a centre and act as the bait in my trap, I would be looking to use the dragon rider to force people into the warriors hopefully minimising my movement and maximising my shooting potential.

The Executioners went onto the list to give me some S5 punch troops. The alternative choice was a pair of chariots. Which is why I included the Banner of Murder to offset some of the lack of pace in the list. I'm not a fan of CO Knights and for the points charits are almost always a better choice, but with my Lord ranging ahead of my army driving the enemy towards the cauldron enhanced troops I wanted to avoid any risks of not being able to move my units which ultimately counted against the chariots.

Now you should be able to see a basic model of my battle line forming, a centre with 4 infantry units (2 combat, 2 missile support) forming the anvil working in combination of my dragon rider hammer unit. Yep I'm forming a good old fashioned hammer and anvil style list. I decided that I would need the combat units to be able to generate a reasonable amount of static combat resolution so I went for 2 extra ranks in each unit and I decided that these would be more threatening if I made them 6 wide, so I started with 2 units of 18 models.

With this part of my army settled I looked at the support elements, I had choosen Dark Riders and Harpies already and to these I added a unit of shades to boost the shooting and give me a way to clog up parts of the battle field I didn't want my opponent to use. I also at this point decided that my Dark Rider unit would get missile weapons. Numbers wise the Shades and Dark Riders would suffice at 6 models each, whilst with the harpies due to the presence of the cauldron and some of the new rules i wanted this unit to be large so I selected a unit of 9, reasonably hard to panic and deadly in combat vs light troops with thier two attacks. I would use this unit initially as a rear guard then move them forward as the game progressed.

I now turned to looking at the magic phase. The magic offence options were limited with the dragon which is what decided me upon the combination of the spellthirster hydra and sorceress, spreading MR across my main battle line improves the effectiveness of just the 3DD. I took two dispel scrolls as a magical insuance policy leaving me the as yet undeployed Seal of Ghrond. The hydra would act as an additional support to my anvil being placed in the very middle of my lines so as to get as many units as possible covered by it's magical protection.

This combo also left me the character slot open necessary to place the Seal of Ghrond in a fairly safe place on a Noble. I could have put this on my Lord but this model will be a prime target for the enemy and I need to keep it in play as much as possible to fulfill its chosen role so a ward save is necessary leaving me few MI allowance points left. He also adds more killing power to the Exec unit, I had also considered an assassin for the Witch unit but decided against such a fragile model.

A bit of fine tuning of the points and unit sizes and my list was done.

I had chosen a themed yet aggressive infantry style combat army, which would be played with a hammer and anvil strategy. It looks good on the table and I felt comfortable with the balance of the list overall, it was maybe a bit slow but thay's what play testing is all about.

Into the game

Well battle fields and opponents vary but I will add a few more comments here mainly to do with magic and what I would be looking to do in Turn 1 versus some generic types of opponent.

Magic wise I will predominantly choose Shadow Magic, Unseen Lurker, Shades of Death and Pit of Shades not to mention Creaping Death are all spells that would augment my tactical plan and the the other two spells are also useful to me, steed can redeploy my sorceress or noble if need be and against cavalry who will generally charge me being able to strike back even with model that get killed could be handy. The plus point with this deck is they are all reasonably easy to cast and there is no chance of me getting a combination of spells which I can't put to maximum use. Death is limited due to not all the spells working against all opponents and Dark like Death doesn't offer me the possibility of a movement spell.

So what will I want to do in Turn 1?
If I go first vs an infantry dominated army I'm going to march my troops - yep all of them I'm prepared to sacrifice a round of shooting from my warriors for better battle field position. Versus a cavalry dominated opponent I will simply advance as marching gives the enemy the potential to make those turn 1 charges yes my warriors will flee but my combat troops will be too far back to take advantage of the failed charges.

Going second is easier vs the infantry army this time I will advance my warriors to get better battlefield position, whilst against a cavalry opponent I will either remain stationary setting my Elites for the inevitable charge at the warrior lines whilst moving my flanking forces into positions to counter charge or move all necessary units to set up the same positions.

Against cavalry armies my shooting will have a minimal affect against the knights so I will try to use it against the support troops leaving the knights exposed to my dragon and executioners, whilst against infantry I will try and weaken the enemy combat blocks by removing static combat resolution giving my Elite infantry the best chances possible in the combats that will decide the game. My fast calary, scouts and flyers will be used to supress the enemy support troops in this instance, whilst in the cavalry model they will be more often than not sacrifce units to push te enemy out of position and expose the and flank/rear of units to my powerful mostrers and elite infantry.

well I hope this is what you were after

Kel
Last edited by Keledron on Sun May 14, 2006 9:37 am, edited 5 times in total.
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
User avatar
Konrad von richtmark
Beastmaster
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Konrad von richtmark »

Good article, definitely Hall of Fame stuff.

Personally I consider all those aspects of list composition and gaming without even thinking about it. I always design my army list around a plan, rather than take what I like and go making plans afterwards. No unit is an island, each one has a role in the grand plan.

Do you mind if I pirate your article? Some youngbloods could have use for it in improving their gaming.
Unless you already figured out, I play Empire. And I like spearelves.

Read The collected tales of Khorandras the Fallen
User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Post by Keledron »

@Konrad

I put it up so people could read it and hopefully use some of my gaming excperience so feel free but if putting it into print or onto another website some form of acknowledgement would be appreciated.

Kel
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
User avatar
Rasputinii
M-A-D
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:52 am
Location: Melbourne Oz
Contact:

Post by Rasputinii »

definitely Hall of Fame stuff


Agreed and Done.
Pleased to be back
User avatar
Underway
Silver Khaine Winner
Posts: 2492
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 7:04 pm
Location: Contemplating the construction of my fleet.

Post by Underway »

I always thought that metagaming was taking the relative feel of the opponents that win tournies and try to create something that deals with them...

For example Bretts, SAD, Southlands and VC seem to do well at the majority of tournaments. Chaos is well represented also. As such I should design a list that deals with all these threats so I can place as high as possible in a tournament.

This actually works much better in 40K because of the fact that everyone and their dog play Marines and Equivalents. Thus you tailor your force to kill marines and you end up placing high in the standings.

That being said designing a force that can equaly deal with undead and Bretts is very difficult as the playing styles are completely different. Forcing you back to the old standby flexable redundant army.

I like the way Kel logically looks at his units and sets them out to play very well. Everything in the list has a place and a logical role depending on the situation.

What I would like to know more about Kel is different types of formations and how they are used.

I'm going to start a topic on it after a little research but I'll definately need your and others imput.
Image
User avatar
Evilzealot
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 2247
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:48 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Evilzealot »

I completely agree with Underway. This seems to be a fine topic on how to construct an army, a checklist for people about things that really should be included; however, the word Metagame is used incorrectly, and therefore the article is misleading.

define: meta-game (Google search) wrote:The game beyond the game. This term is usually used to describe player interactions and what goes on between games. For example, the meta-game of ME:TW in Montreal may predispose players towards corruption decks, simply because they've been successful in the past.


Not sure how you'd write a tactica for how to take advantage of your opponents lists. As already mentioned it is difficult to make an army that can deal with all threats. Also the local Meta-game is usually different for each area, and also changes based on the event. Usually it is something that local players must figure out.
User avatar
Dyvim tvar
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Posts: 8372
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: The Dragon Caves of the Underway (Indianapolis IN)
Contact:

Post by Dyvim tvar »

I think Evilzealot is saying something very important. Meta-Gaming is about kowing the gaming environment and taking advantage of it. It's about knowing how a particulae opponent likes to do things or how people in a certain gaming group like to do things.

For example, I know one group of gamers that I run into at tournament sometimes, and they all like to develop a deployment plan for their army that they use4 regardless of opponent and regardless of how their opponent deploys. Knowing that they like to use this tupe of inflexible approach I can take advantage of it within the context of a particular game.

Or an even better example -- if I know that Bretonnians are particularly popular in a certain area, or that people tend to play low-magic armies, I can take that into conmsideration when contructing my own army.
Last edited by Dyvim tvar on Sun May 14, 2006 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Truly These are the End Times ...
User avatar
Narathiel
Rudolph's Heir
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: flirting on msn :)

Post by Narathiel »

Out of pure interest and determination to make this thread even better, but also to learn from my list I did the same evaluation for mine.

My List

(V1.1 is the one I'm posting this on)

Thoughts on Fluff and Creation

Ok, looking at Fluff I wanted a list, not from one of the cities of Naggaroth but it's outskirts. To be exact, a Ranger patrol from the Iron mountains, near Naggarond.
I wanted such an unique army, as almost all other armies have been covered in countless forms, only scouting parties haven't. Lots of executioners from Har Ganeth, a beast army from Karond Kar etc.


Knowing the fluff my list would consist of and wanting as much competiveness as possible I decided to begin with the characters. First came a scouting noble, one which could kill warmachines, mages in turn 2 and still survive. With him, I took 2 units of 5 shades. These could serve as screens and would prove helpful knowing all the territory by heart (ie skirmishers,scouts).

Now I wanted a core. Two medium units of spearmen would be good for scanning the area and could put up a good enough fight with most units until helps arrives, in case of attacks. 2x10 more spearmen would serve as reinforcements for these mainstay units.

Now I needed some quick units, so I chose the irresistable Dark Riders, but only one unit as not all horses can survive the frigid mountain air of Naggaroth. Still thinking of the utter coolness I added a hydra and 2x5 COK knights, who's resistant skin would protect them form the cold and whos power was enough to terrorize whole enemy armies. My general, a noble was added to the COK making them able to win most Cavalry vs Cavalry fights.

Now only few options were kept open. The patrol needed a skilled sorceress to feel the winds of magic and notice the slightest change in them to find enemy troops. She should also do some of damage so I gave her the lifetaker, the only crossbow worth taking for its long range in such foggy weather and made her lvl 3 so she could carry some scrolls of protection too.
2 Reapers where added to scare enemy units off and to manipulate their movement. These could also prove worthy vs all cavalry armies.


As you can see I had a list in mind which would try to keep the opponent as occupied as possible. Doing this would mean that the opposing army would do mistakes and turn around their army to face my shades, dark riders and noble. However, turning around would mean getting rear charged by my powerful center of COK, a hydra and having to take even more fire from the reapers.

In Game Thoughts

Ok, first of all my lvl 3. She has 5 power dice to work with. This means either one spell with 2 dice and another with 3 or one with 4 and one with 1.
If you look at the lores she can use (shadow,dark and death) Out of the 3 lores Dark is best suited for this as enhancing a unit in such a big, redudant army (83 models, for druchii) is not really worth it and that is basically what the lore is all about. Killing of enemy troops with magic missiles is also not needed as I have the noble,shades, and again a big army.
However, dark magic is what I want. Chillwind is great for lots of shooting, against which my army, like all others would otherwise have some problems. I also have problem against dragons so the str 5 and controlling from doombolt and dominion would help too. And versing other elite infantry I have black horror, word of pain and to some extents soulstealer which aslso comes handy against the horde (200+models of goblins)

Next, is my deployment and what I will try to do in Turn 1.

VS armies with similar sizes (ie almost all armies) I will deploy with my hardhitters a bit to the right/left of the centre of my deployment zone. On one side of them I will have 16 spearmen, and the 2x10 spearmen and on the other side the 16 spearmen.
If my opponent has very quick units, especially fliers I will have my reapers deploy about 25" apart so they cant reach them in 2 but 3 turns. I will have 5 shades as rearguard and also to screen some of my units at the start and the 5 shades+noble scouting if possible + the DR on the same side so the opponent hopefully wheels some of their units towards them (300 points of the 3 units should make him do that) Hopefuly they can scout on the my weaker side (with just the 16 spearmen) so the opponent has to think twice of what to do.
My sorceress will probably join the DR, or just stay back. (In this case, putting her on foot and taking another shade for the rearguard would be something to think abiout)

VS the rest is kinda hard to say. I think the above deployment will work against most, even hordes and shooty armies of death. One exception might be miniscule chaos armies or monster armies (like one with 2 hydras and 2 mantis) In these I would try to lead the monsters away with my noble and shades instead of hunting mages and will probably deploy heavily on one flank so I can defend myself well and count on the 5+CR from the 2 spearmen blocks.

Hope you guys learned something.

Feel free to post critics on my list. I think it is pretty competive and cool 8) I hope you guys have other opinions though.
Yeah, been a long time and I have come across all sort of ****.

but I AM back so there you go-it's official ;)
It seems like the assassin sent out to eliminate me failed.
[insert evil laughter]
User avatar
Waerik
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:50 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by Waerik »

To have a base and then add thing to supliment that base... yep that's also the way I do it...

I usually don't have any concious deployment ideas, I usually make them up when I see the terrain, the opponent dosn't matter that much, but I find that your units in relation to the battle field is one of the primary keys to victory...

A very nice post about things that I percive as rather obvious...

People who do not realise that they are creating an army, as oposed to a bunch of individuals who happen to be there at the same time, are bound to fail...
[CENTER]Image[/CENTER]
User avatar
Dyvim tvar
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Posts: 8372
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: The Dragon Caves of the Underway (Indianapolis IN)
Contact:

Re: Meta Gaming

Post by Dyvim tvar »

Keledron wrote:So firstly what do I mean by the term “meta-gaming”.

Meta-gaming is an understanding of the “game within the game”. It is all those things that the best players do instinctively when they design army lists, deploy for battle and carry out their battle plans on the table top.


Going back and re-reading your original post, I see now what it is that troubled me. My understanding of "meta-gaming" as the term is generally used is not the "game within the game," but rather the "game outside the game."

Although I hate to use this buzz-phrase, meta-gaming in my understanding is the a sort of "thinking outside the box." That is, it involves considering factors outside the rule-set of the game itself and then applying those factors within the game. It's about considering and exploiting tendencies/characteristics of the larger game environment.

The most basic example of this might be building your army because you know you are facing a specific opponent and you take into account that person's tendencies while doing so.
Truly These are the End Times ...
User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Post by Keledron »

@Dyvim, a difference of language and why I made sure I explained what I meant by the phrase.

Though thinking about the phrase more even the word game can have several implications I was thinking about Warhammer "the game" where as you in my view are talking about "a game of Warhammer" as a specific event i.e next week I'm playing a VC army so what should I do.

The point you raised earlier led me to make the above assumption about what you meant by "game".

I was thinking more from a generic gaming point of view with the original post i.e you know nothing about the environment in which you will be playing so what can you do to maximise your chances of playing a good game and hopefully winning. Though I could have made that point clearer.

The subject of knowing the environment, players, army popularities is well raised and is another element you can consider when creating an army but as a general priniple is a risky one as people have a nasty tendancy to turn up with something quite unexpected on occassions.

I'd be much interested in seeing what other "outside the box" areas you consider when putting together your lists.

thanks for taking the time to read it twice

Kel.
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Post by Keledron »

Evilzealot wrote:
define: meta-game (Google search) wrote:The game beyond the game. This term is usually used to describe player interactions and what goes on between games. For example, the meta-game of ME:TW in Montreal may predispose players towards corruption decks, simply because they've been successful in the past.


Not sure how you'd write a tactica for how to take advantage of your opponents lists. As already mentioned it is difficult to make an army that can deal with all threats. Also the local Meta-game is usually different for each area, and also changes based on the event. Usually it is something that local players must figure out.


I bow to the power of Google though having gone and done some research on the term there seems to be almost as many descriptions and definitions of meta-gaming as there are flavours of jelly bean. It was also interesting to read that diferent game types imply diferent things by metagaming - I even found one decription of it as simply cheating.

I thought this interesting and can see that I might well have not chosen the right title for the thread

Origins of metagaming (Wikipedia)
The term metagame arose in mathematics as a descriptor for set interaction that governs subset interaction in certain cases. The term passed to military use and then to politics to describe functions that are often considered outside consideration yet have come to influence a recently emergent issue. Hence, a military operation would be considered a game under these considerations, but the political ramifications may be telling on the war as a metagame. Just so, a political game would be intent and method, while metagame to the political effort might be systems that govern the political game, for good or ill

As to the second point I wouldn't have a clue how you'd do that either.
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
Geoguswrek
Highborn
Posts: 616
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: painting the null stone on my archmage

Post by Geoguswrek »

thanks for this article kel, it has really made me think about things in the game i wasn't originally
User avatar
Evilzealot
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 2247
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:48 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Evilzealot »

Ah, seems like the term Meta-gaming is being brutalized by the online community... but the important thing is it has multiple meanings. I can understand the confusion on both sides now ;).

On a side note, I find the whole article really funny - for a completely different reason. As a competative player, I would always look for these criteria when constructing an army. I just assumed everyone followed this type of thinking when they took to the field, but I'm way off! (Which is what I find funny, but it'd explain a lot of massacre games)

I went through the exact process with my Cult of Slannesh army, and my Sisters of Battle - being designed from the grounds up to be a contender ;). The Cult had fantastic sucess, and was enjoyable to play (although it was a bit much for my opponents). The Sisters of Battle are just being finished, but in the few proxy games they have performed brilliantly.

Should it be mentioned that this style of play can really lead to the domination of local players? Playing the game to the best of your abilities is fun, but if you start brutalizing your buddies or just consistantly winning then the game can lose some of it's challenge! You may want to consider if you want to really improve your game - with great power comes great responsibility !lol!
User avatar
Keledron
Malekith's Personal Guard
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 2:06 pm
Location: Locked in a bunker with only a HE player for company
Contact:

Post by Keledron »

Evilzealot wrote:Should it be mentioned that this style of play can really lead to the domination of local players? Playing the game to the best of your abilities is fun, but if you start brutalizing your buddies or just consistantly winning then the game can lose some of it's challenge! You may want to consider if you want to really improve your game - with great power comes great responsibility !lol!


Good point sometimes you need to approach it from a what will be fun to play against for everyone else perspective rather than what will win most games.
Life is short, death last for ever like a journey on British public transport!
Locked